by best on hill » Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:09 am
by Barto » Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:44 am
by Bum Crack » Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:49 am
Barto wrote:The players are supposed to leave an opposition bloke alone if he's actually with the trainers, the trainer does have a right to tell players to move away if the situation warrants it. With the Riewoldt incident against Brisbane I dont recall the trainers being with him at the time.
Which quarter did this happen? I haven't seen the game and want to have a look.
by best on hill » Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:19 pm
Barto wrote:The players are supposed to leave an opposition bloke alone if he's actually with the trainers, the trainer does have a right to tell players to move away if the situation warrants it. With the Riewoldt incident against Brisbane I dont recall the trainers being with him at the time.
Which quarter did this happen? I haven't seen the game and want to have a look.
by CUTTERMAN » Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:09 pm
by The Dark Knight » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:11 pm
CUTTERMAN wrote:Baker deserved it, hand slapping wanker at best. Play footy and leave the hand holding to milne.
by Rik E Boy » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:36 am
best on hill wrote:it is in my opinion that if a player is hurt injured and is in the hands of the trainers they should be left alone. in the match between geelong st kilda jimmy bartel was hurt and in the hands of the trainers making his way of the ground when a cowardly st player tried to hit were he was injured. this is not the first time it had happen. richmond v hawthorne this year, and the most publicised was brisbane v st kilda a few years back. comments please!
by Rik E Boy » Sun Jun 27, 2010 8:37 am
The Dark Knight wrote:CUTTERMAN wrote:Baker deserved it, hand slapping wanker at best. Play footy and leave the hand holding to milne.
That was absolutely hilarious. It did work though, he made Johnson crack.
by Booney » Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:58 am
by Rik E Boy » Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:29 am
Booney wrote:After seeing the Bartel incident, what a storm in a tea cup this is. Nothing in it and barely worth commenting on.
by Bum Crack » Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:38 am
Rik E Boy wrote:Booney wrote:After seeing the Bartel incident, what a storm in a tea cup this is. Nothing in it and barely worth commenting on.
I prefer a hand in a D Cup.....
although, Booney you have just commented on it....barely.![]()
regards,
REB
by Barto » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:25 pm
Booney wrote:After seeing the Bartel incident, what a storm in a tea cup this is. Nothing in it and barely worth commenting on.
by Barto » Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:31 pm
In other incidents, Saint Sam Fisher was cleared of making unnecessary contact with an injured Jimmy Bartel as he left the field hyper-extending his elbow.
"From all available vision that was viewed, including vision that was not broadcast during the match telecast, the play downfield then moved at the time that Bartel moves into Fisher’s path to begin leaving the ground," the panel said in a statement.
"Fisher has his eyes on the play down the ground and steps forward and minor contact is made by Fisher to Bartel. The panel said that Fisher’s focus was play at the end of the ground and the contact was not deemed unreasonable in the circumstances."
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |